This page has archives. Topics inactive for90 days are automatically archived1 or more at a time byLowercase sigmabot III if there are more than5.
This forum is fordiscussion closers to discuss theirevaluation of consensus in preparation forclosing specific discussions, such as pendingXfD,RM, orRfC closes. Any editor who intends to close a discussion, and has concerns about how consensus in that discussion should be assessed is welcome to initiate a discussion here.
Please note that this isnot a place to discuss themerits of the underlying matter. It is solely for discussing whether a consensus can be discerned in a discussion, and how the discussion should be closed on the basis of a finding of consensus, or of an absence of consensus. Editors who are involved in discussions of the merits should generally avoid engaging in extensive discussion of how consensus in those discussions should be interpreted.
This is alsonot a venue for review of discussions that have already been closed; the appropriate place for such a request will generally beWikipedia:Move review orWikipedia:Deletion review. This forum is alsonot for requests that a discussion be closed; the appropriate place for such a request will generally beWikipedia:Closure requests.
I think my analysis was correct but I should update my closure statement with the following:
While there is no local consensus on which sentence is better, there is consensus in the community to avoid duplication in the introduction. Editors should prefer “Phnom Phem fell” to “The Fall was the capture”.
My closure did nothing to move things forward so I'm leaning toward reverting it. The discussion has spilled over toFall of Saigon. Alternatively should there be a broader RfC somewhere that addresses all the "Fall of" pages?Dw31415 (talk)13:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can revert it. The usual reasons for doing so are that the closer is convinced by some of the arguments, or the closer is just disgusted by the behavior and has decided there are better things to do with their time. It is not necessary (or necessarily advisable) to say which one is applicable in any given case.WhatamIdoing (talk)20:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ido think that maybe the reopened RfC could addressgenerally the question of whether stating in the lede sentence that the "fall of" somewhere is "the capture" of the same place does or does not violateMOS:REDUNDANCY. DoesMOS:FIRST's provision that the lede "define the subject" take precedence over REDUNDANCY here? Is "Fall of" sufficiently obscure terminology that it might be necessary to restate itinline as the "capture of"? Does an article's recognition as a GA forestall other editors besides the editor who developed it from making changes to the lede sentence regardless of whether they think that's in keeping with policy/MOS?
Ireverted my close. I think there was some guidance for Daniel to advertise it on MOS:Talk and some of the other "Fall of" pages, but I can't remember where I saw that and I hope that's not considered forum shopping.Dw31415 (talk)00:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator of this (Wikipedia talk:NOT#RfC on consensus of WP:DESTNOT: Broad or specific.) RfC requests an experienced closer, which I am not. I'm suggesting this edit now because the RfC has sat for a while and does not seem to raise complex policy questions. I'd appreciate a co-signer or review here of my proposed close here to ensure that I'm not missing some deeper issue at play. Here's how I propose to close. Any thoughts, edits, etc are very welcome.
There was no consensus that the previous RfC was either "broad" or "narrow" (applied only to the two articles mentioned). As more than one editor pointed out, discussions are not legalistic (WP:NOTCOURT) and the previous RfC (and this one) will inform future discussions but not be strictly binding. Editors mentioned potential areas for future discussion to improve consensus such as defining the criteria or sourcing for including routes in articles.
This seems like an obvious close. An even split of editors for and against including an info box meaning: No consensus and the info box should not be included. This was mentioned as a contentious topic so I’d like an experienced co-signer.
Alternatively if there is some policy that would override the need for local consensus to include an info box, please let me know and I’ll back away from this one. Thanks!!Dw31415 (talk)18:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dw31415, as I'm sure you know, an even numerical split doesn't actually mean no consensus.
I suggest that you don't close it. Instead, I suggest that you look at the relevant rules (e.g., try to find a reason why it's good bad for the individual article [not for all articles, all biographies, all musicians – theindividual article]) and then place a vote yourself. Please consider looking for ways to advertise it. Achieving consensus, even if it takes longer than 27 days to do so, would be preferable to having this discussion repeated at this article next year.WhatamIdoing (talk)19:11, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or just close it, given it's run its course. There really is no need to drag this on any longer, given there isn't a consensus in either argument or numbers. And unless there is a change in policies or guidelines, there really will be no need to have another discussion for a long time, unless people want to have one just because they can't accept that some people have a different opinion to them. -SchroCat (talk)19:18, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would not recommend that an inexperienced closer take on any infobox RFC.
I do expect infobox disputes to recur endlessly until an infobox is added. I doubt that's "because they can't accept that some people have a different opinion", but I still expect it to happen. (And if anyone were to ask my advice, it's that they emptyCategory:Wikipedia articles with an infobox request before having an RFC over a disputed infobox.)WhatamIdoing (talk)19:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dw31415 has asked for an experienced co-signer, which seems to be a good path to take, so I don't see a problem, given much of the responsibility will lie on the shoulders of that more experienced colleague.
It is, of course, possible that people will disruptively keep pushing for an IB until they get their own way - I've certainly often seen the same people responsible to pot-stirring and continued pressing when a trip to ANI or ArbCom would be the better way to stop the dramah-mongering and disruption, but there we go, such is life. Until there is a change in the policies or guidelines that's the situation we're in - and every time there is a centralised debate to change the guidelines, the community roundly rejects it. -SchroCat (talk)19:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. I’m likely to heed it. I’ll give this section a day to see if any experienced editor desires to mentor/co-sign on this one.
No, not when it's pretty much a 50/50 split and no compelling arguments based on policies or guidelines. Keeping contentious RFCs running longer than necessary only increases the possibility that people will overstep the mark. There have been no comments in ten days, so it's moribund as it is: just someone close it and we can all move on. -SchroCat (talk)20:16, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@S Marshall, thank you and a master class in closing. (I naively think, I’d love to hear if others disagree. Now I’ll just head over and edit my name over yours to take credit 😉 Just kidding! I’ll edit the close request if you haven’t already.Dw31415 (talk)22:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the now rescinded close, this is the close I would offer. I’ll stop short of closing because I don’t want to receive any BADNAC accusations, but I would be willing to co-sign something similar to below.
Given the number of editors supporting the status quo, there is no consensus for a change in this discussion. Increasing the number of signatures required for recall is the change with the most support but its supporters are fewer than the supporters of the status quo. The analysis from the initial close follows.
I would leave it at that and include Dr V’s analysis of the support for A-K. I think the criticism that the structure of the options does not lend itself to determining actionable consensus has merit. Further, focused discussion on the items with support may produce some consensus for change.Dw31415 (talk)19:16, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys, it's me your boy here and I'm just saying about some ideas of multi-headed beasts from mythology that I found throught the internet and I'm really curious to find more informations on them. Which one of you could to tell anything about their names, lores and tale of 'em?JJMikey (talk)
I think you're on the wrong noticeboard. This is a page for re-discussing past discussions about Wikipedia policy, and is about as meta as you can get. I think you're looking for something from a video game, maybe?, but you'll need to give a lot more context about what you want.Cremastra (talk·contribs)18:33, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Cremastra: Actually this is more of a page for discussion closers to get advice from other discussion closers on the closure of specific discussions, which is perhaps even more meta. Cheers!BD2412T19:20, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's two lost newcomers in less than two days. Should we think about aWP:SEMI, so they'll have to go elsewhere? People don't expect software to allow them to do the 'wrong' thing.WhatamIdoing (talk)22:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Olympedia was openned almost 90 days ago. I'm hoping there might be some collaboration to close it. I don't have much experience with RSN. What's the pragmatic difference between #1 (reliable) and #5 (reliable with caveats)? Many of the !votes are for 1 or 5, but I'm not clear on the practical distinction. If the outcome were #5, where would the caveats be documented? Would the outcome be a basis for deleting edits on biographical material? If there's not consensus for that should those concerns be still noted in the close?
Which describes the reliability of Olympedia best:
The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
The source is recognized as being generally unreliable and should be deprecated.
The source is: Generally reliable for sports-statistics data; Of unclear reliability for biographical data; and Not independent of the International Olympic Committee (IOC).
1 means it's generally reliable for all purposes. 5 means it's generally reliable for sports-statistics data and "of unclear reliability" for biographical data. If you're not clear on what those distinctions mean practically, I don't think you should be closing this discussion.voorts (talk/contributions)17:30, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Glancing through the discussion, I see that I fortuitously participated in the discussion and am therefore exempt from closing it. It's now at the top ofWikipedia:Closure requests#Requests for comment and will presumably be addressed in due course. As general advice, if anyone who is reading this wants to close it, I think the most workable theme might be what wasn't agreed to, rather than what was.
This is pointless, as there is already a close request atWP:CR#Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Olympedia, unarchiving won't close it any sooner and anyone who would close it would have unarchived it when they did (which is what I thought you had done). As it is it will be archived again in a few days. Restoring 100k of text ina discussion that is just waiting a close only negatively impacts the functioning of the noticeboard --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°20:27, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The RSN noticeboard is regularly overburdened, that's why the archiving is set to five days. Restoring this was a mistake, that will negatively impact other editors. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°20:32, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure: I !voted and I have a longstanding position against articles being sourced only to online databases in general and Olympedia in particular.I feel the closer of that discussion needs to take into account the following things:1. Someone's obfuscated the identity of the editor who asked the question. They're allowed to, rather frustratingly, but the closer always needs to establish who did that, when, and why. Also establish whether the question changed during the course of the debate, and if so when, why, and who changed it.2. The discussion includes matters that weren't explicitly part of the question. In particular there's a lot about whether Olympedia is an independent source, which in context might actually be about notability rather than reliability. In closing, be mindful that the community isn't constrained to only consider the RFC question. I think the distinction between options 1 and 5 is that option 1 has this online database as an unqualified suitable source for a BLP, and option 5 has it as a suitable source but not a suitable sole source.3. Be mindful of how many articles this RFC affects (it's thousands) and the long and political history of Lugnuts, Wikipedia's most prolific article starter ever, who is now sitebanned. Consider the circumstances in which Arbcom banned him.4. Consider the long and bitterly political history of sports notability guidelines.5. Back the hell away and let a panel of experienced sysops take the inevitable flak from closing this one. Where angels fear to tread, etc.—S MarshallT/C07:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you for reviewing!Dw31415 (talk)19:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to join the discussion atSpecial:GoToComment/c-Aaron Liu-20260126172200-Guideline status for WP:CLOSE. Not exactly a discussion for discussion, I realize, but I think it's of interest to usclosers.Aaron Liu (talk)17:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]